Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
There's also the matter of precedent. The next time the a player collides with a ref, they want to have as much precedent as possible to lynch that guy.
TSN: Wideman suspension reduced to 10 games by neutral arbitrator
- Thread starter Ynnek
- Start date
Where does the 10 games come from?
He deliberately hit a ref that's 20 games cut and dry from the rulebook.
He isn't following the rules by making up a random 10 game suspension from nothing.
Appeal so that next time a guy hits a ref they can give him the proper punishment, appeal so the next time this moron of an arbitrator is potentially used they can show that he is an idiot.
False, the 20 games is an intent to injure, which the arbitrator deemed no evidence of.
Rule 40.3 states 10 games
Did he think that the lineman would be great getting shoved to the ice from behind?
Does he think the ice is made of pillows?
Again the arbitrator is an idiot who made he decision based on nothing.
Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
It comes from the fact that there isn't a way to tell if it's deliberate, as I've been telling you from the very beginning. The rulebook only covers deliberate acts. The attack on officials rule is split into three parts, each of which either specifically states or logically implies deliberate intent.
So if you can't show deliberate intent, you don't have a basis for suspending 20 games. If a deliberate attack is 20 games, it is logical that a non-deliberate attack, one that is careless as opposed to malicious, should be less than that.
The flaw in your logic comes from that statement that he deliberately hit a ref, and that's cut and dry. This ruling is logically equivalent (and I expect this to be backed up by the verbiage of the ruling when we get to hear it) to saying that it was not deliberate.
Why don't you read the decision from the arbitrator. It even brings up the rules involved. Instead your just spouting ********
Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
Bounces R Way
Registered User
Just read this post and not surprising it is complete BS.
The arbitrator came to an absolutely reasonable conclusion based on the evidence.
Basing a ruling on supportable facts, circumstances and history; while also being the first impartial decision maker not being leaned on by the ref's union or media - what a concept.
Still don't get those standing beside their crusifix calling for blood when they have been so clearly shot down as wrong.
Stupid and dangerous play with negligence resulting in injury, yes. Fire in his eyes with intent to wreck a ref, nope.
Still don't get those standing beside their crusifix calling for blood when they have been so clearly shot down as wrong.
Stupid and dangerous play with negligence resulting in injury, yes. Fire in his eyes with intent to wreck a ref, nope.
InfinityIggy
Zagidulin's Dad
The only thing thats BS is the nonsense you are spouting.
It's interesting that you 'coincidentally' always take the contrarian point of view in every single thread..
Last edited:
Bosnian Beast
Formerly Janko Unchained
I was going to say... bold words for a guy who pulls "facts" out of thin air.
I have been consistent in my view on the matter from the start so I am not taking any view just stating my opinion.
And go read the thread on the main board it is hardly a contrarian view.
Ynnek
Registered User
InfinityIggy
Zagidulin's Dad
No you haven't. Why is your assertion that the arbitrator is a 'moron' only being stated after the ruling?
Because he is not a 'moron'. Because you are sour grapes since as usual your opinion was completely incorrect and now you need to whine about it instead of using anything of substance to argue your opinion.
Regarding contrarian, I am talking in regards to this board.
(I should note I do not expect a reply to this post, as this is the point at which moon always stops replying, as is illustrated in countless other threads.)
Last edited:
Kranix
Deranged Homer
- Jun 27, 2012
- 18,338
- 16,449
Dack
Registered User
- Jun 16, 2014
- 3,917
- 3,547
Agree with you 100% II, I just shook my head when I saw his comments in the Gaudreau vs Nylander and Agostino threads.
Ynnek
Registered User
Pirate King Luffy
Ferkland
Dertell
Registered User
- Jul 14, 2015
- 2,923
- 474
My take on this whole affair:
Good on Wideman for losing less $ and I think the arbitrator took the right decision based on my limited knowledge of the rules.
But rule 40.2 seems dumb as hell. If Wideman's hit on the defenseless individual was intentional, shouldn't he, you know, be facing assault charges instead of receiving a slap on the wrist by the NHL? Should get 20 games suspension regardless of intent.
Good on Wideman for losing less $ and I think the arbitrator took the right decision based on my limited knowledge of the rules.
But rule 40.2 seems dumb as hell. If Wideman's hit on the defenseless individual was intentional, shouldn't he, you know, be facing assault charges instead of receiving a slap on the wrist by the NHL? Should get 20 games suspension regardless of intent.
SmellOfVictory
Registered User
- Jun 3, 2011
- 10,959
- 653
Flames Fanatic
Mediocre
At least in a courtroom the Judge would be assuming innocent until proven guilty, unlike Bettman. Those transcripts were frustrating to read, and I don't even really care if Wideman is playing for us or not.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
Gold Medal 2024 IIHF WORLD CHAMPION - PICK ONLY ONE TEAMWagers: 7Staked: $36,600.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-